ORDER : 1. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for learned Advocate Mr. Rutul P. Desai for the petitioner learned Advocate Mr. Pranav Desai for the Respondent-SBI. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “8. ... (a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to direct the respondent bank to immediately release the FDR to the tune of Rs.57,45,022/- being arbitrary and illegally withheld by the Respondent-Bank; on in alternative; (b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to direct the respondent bank to transfer the said amount directly to the Resp. 2 &3 KVAT Department, Karnataka pursuant to the demand raised by the said department vide letters dated 24.11.2021; (c) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, This Honourable Court may be pleased to accept any corporate guarantee of the petitioner company in order to release the FDRs lying with the respondent bank for the purpose of paying the statutory dues of the said amount to the K-VAT department in the interest of justice; (D) ...” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a private limited company, for carrying its banking transactions has availed the financial assistance from the Respondent-SBI and along with the financial assistance, the Respondent-SBI has also advanced non-fund based facilities of issuance of Performance Bank Guarantee (in brief, ‘PBG’) to the petitioner for availing the contract in favour of the petitioner by the various authorities. 3.1 As per the arrangement between the petitioner and the Respondent-SBI, such PBGs were issued with 15% margin of the total amount of the bank guarantee to be issued in favour of the third party beneficiaries along with collateral property as security. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly for different projects the petitioner deposited the margin money with the Respondent- SBI and in turn, the Respondent-SBI issued different PBGs with different validity periods in favour of the different third party beneficiaries. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly for different projects the petitioner deposited the margin money with the Respondent- SBI and in turn, the Respondent-SBI issued different PBGs with different validity periods in favour of the different third party beneficiaries. 3.3 According to the petitioner, so far as the PBGs which were provided by the ICICI Bank is concerned, the Respondent-SBI has issued a counter PBG in favour of the ICICI Bank. 3.4 Following PBGs were issued by the Respondent- SBI along with the date of expiry and the date of discharge letter provided by the third party beneficiaries; Sr. No. B.G. No. Claim Period Expired Client Date of Discharge Letter 1. 0505414BG0022347 11.12.2017 VMC 13.12.2021 2. 0505414BG0021769 11.12.2017 VMC 13.12.2021 3. 0505409BG0005014 29.09.2014 VMC 13.12.2021 4. 0505414BG0022348 24.12.2018 MPIDC, Indore 21.09.2021 5. 0505414BG0023159 30.05.2018 VMC 16.01.2021 6. 0505416BG000673 16.02.2018 VMC 16.01.2021 7. 0505412BG0015726 13.09.2014 VMC 16.01.2021 8. 0505416BG0000279 09.03.2017 Jabalpur Corporation October, 2020 9. 0505416BG0000280 09.03.2017 Jabalpur Corporation October, 2020 10. 0505416BG0000281 09.03.2017 Jabalpur Corporation October, 2020 11. 0505416BG0001457 06.12.2020 Umaria MP Original returned 12. 0505414BG0018148 18.07.2014 AMC 21.01.2021 13. 0505414BG0022785 07.12.2018 AMC 21.01.2021 3.5 It is also stated in this petition that the financial assistance availed by the petitioner has been settled by availing the benefit of ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ of the Respondent-SBI and no due certificates have also been issued by the Respondent-SBI in favour of the petitioner in the year 2020. 3.6 The petitioner thereafter made various representations to the Respondent-SBI to release the amount deposited by the petitioner towards margin money by way of Fixed Deposits Receipts (herein after, ‘FDRs’) in view of the discharge of the PBGs, which have expired long back. However, for the reasons best known to the Respondent-SBI, under the one pretext or the other, the FDRs kept by the petitioner with the Respondent-SBI were not released. 3.7 The list of FDRs of the petitioner, which are held by the Respondent-SBI, is as under: Sr. No. FDR Account Deposit Maturity Amount Total Amount As On 30.11.2021 1. 37647043151 12.04.2021 8160011 8455649 2. 34072073381 23.08.2021 466763 473220 3. 35195086032 01.09.2021 1437073 1438900 4. 36302377978 09.12.2021 2456679 2453711 5. 36301927426 09.12.2021 1980991 1977621 6. 37467876848 11.01.2022 134617 133842 7. 3.7 The list of FDRs of the petitioner, which are held by the Respondent-SBI, is as under: Sr. No. FDR Account Deposit Maturity Amount Total Amount As On 30.11.2021 1. 37647043151 12.04.2021 8160011 8455649 2. 34072073381 23.08.2021 466763 473220 3. 35195086032 01.09.2021 1437073 1438900 4. 36302377978 09.12.2021 2456679 2453711 5. 36301927426 09.12.2021 1980991 1977621 6. 37467876848 11.01.2022 134617 133842 7. 37544597208 16.02.2022 339248 335623 Total 14975382 15268566 3.8 It is further stated in this petition that the petitioner is in the need of the funds, which is to be deposited with the Karnataka Government to avail the benefit of ‘Kara Samadhan Scheme 2020-2021’, whereby, an assessee can get the waiver of interest and penalty amount and has to pay only the principal amount towards the outstanding tax and accordingly, the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,18,78,667/-, which was revised to Rs.1,46,23,639/-, which is to be paid on or before 31st December, 2021. 3.9 The petitioner therefore requested the Respondent-SBI to release the FDRs, which are kept as margin money for issuance of the PBGs and for which the PBGs have already expired 3.10 According to the petitioner, even though, the petitioner is not required to give discharge letter and or the original PBGs or the PBGs, which have already expired, at the insistence on the part of the Respondent-SBI, the petitioner has also furnished such discharge letters of the third party beneficiaries, which are also produced on record by the petitioner. 3.11 Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner to the Respndent-SBI, the Respondent-SBI has adopted an adamant approach by not releasing the FDRs kept it with by the petitioner for issuance of PBGs. 4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat referred to the communication dated 6th December, 2021, at Page- 56, to which the petitioner replied by furnishing the discharge letters of the third party beneficiaries and requested the Respondent-SBI to release the FDRs kept by the petitioner with the Respondent-SBI for which the PBGs have expired long back and the third party beneficiaries also have issued discharge letters. Shelat referred to the communication dated 6th December, 2021, at Page- 56, to which the petitioner replied by furnishing the discharge letters of the third party beneficiaries and requested the Respondent-SBI to release the FDRs kept by the petitioner with the Respondent-SBI for which the PBGs have expired long back and the third party beneficiaries also have issued discharge letters. 4.2 It was also pointed out that in spite of the above admitted facts, the Respondent-SBI vide letter dated 14th December, 2021 again reiterated that unless and until the original PBGs or the discharge letters of the third party beneficiaries are furnished by the petitioner, the Respondent-SBI shall not release the FDRs kept by the petitioner for issuance of the PBGs. 4.3 It was therefore submitted that the Respondent-SBI, which is a statutory body, has adopted such an adamant approach by not releasing the amount of FDRs, which is required by the petitioner for payment of taxes to Karnataka Government for availing the benefit of ‘Kara Samadhan Scheme’ and therefore the present petition is filed. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. P.G. Desai appearing for the Respondent-SBI submitted that the petitioner is required to keep the FDRs with regard to the counter bank gurantee issued to the ICICI Bank by the Respondent-SBI and also to keep further amount which may be demanded by the ICICI Bank in future. 5.1 It was further submitted that in the list given by the petitioner at Page-11, Sr. No.5, FDR Account No. 36301927426, amounting to Rs.19,80,991/- of which the total amount as on 30th November, 2021, is Rs.19,77,621/- is not with the Respondent-SBI. 5.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Desai has referred to a letter dated 7th October, 2021, received from the Employees State Insurance Corporation, which contains garnishee order under Section 45G of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, with regard to the petitioner for payment of Rs.9,02,863/-. It was therefore submitted that the Respondent- SBI also cannot release the amount of Rs.9,02,863/- in favour of the petitioner out of the FDRs held by the Respondent-SBI. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat at this juncture stated that the petitioner is not desirous to get the amount of FDRs for which the counter bank guarantee has been issued by the Respondent-Bank to ICICI Bank as well as the amount of Rs.9,02,863/- for which a garnishee order is received by the Respondent-SBI. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat at this juncture stated that the petitioner is not desirous to get the amount of FDRs for which the counter bank guarantee has been issued by the Respondent-Bank to ICICI Bank as well as the amount of Rs.9,02,863/- for which a garnishee order is received by the Respondent-SBI. 6.1 It was therefore submitted that the Respondent-SBI may be directed to release the remaining amount of FDRs withheld by it. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that the Respondent-SBI has not released the amount of FDRs kept by the petitioner towards margin money for issuance of the PBGs from time to time in favour of the third party beneficiaries. 7.1 It is not in dispute that such PBGs have expired long back and the necessary discharge letters of the third party beneficiaries have also been furnished by the petitioner to the Respondent-SBI. In such circumstances, the Respondent-SBI is not right in withholding the amount of FDRs of the amount kept by the petitioner with the Respondent-SBI. 7.2 With regard to the concern raised by the learned Advocate Mr. Desai on the account of the liability of the Respondent-SBI to pay the amount to the ICICI Bank as well as the garnishee order passed with regard to the amount of Rs.9,02,683/-, the petitioner has given the consent not to release such amount and the same is to be kept with the Respondent-SBI. 8. In such circumstances, the Respondent-SBI is directed to release the amount of Rs.57,45,022/- in favour of the petitioner forthwith and / or latest by 24th December, 2021. 8.1 With the aforesaid observations and direction this petition is accordingly disposed of. Direct service is permitted.